This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voluntary childlessness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Is the image of a woman talking to her pet rooster really the best image to represent voluntary childlessness? Fephisto ( talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a criticism section? I say this in relation to the article being voluntary childlessness and thus a choice. Perhaps criticism in relation to ideological aspects like antinatalism, a view that does have note of criticism in its article. Zilch-nada ( talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention of the most important reason to be child free,IMO, that it is immoral to impose a life of struggles and pain onto another being. 50.206.145.234 ( talk) 21:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need a large section on celebrities who pursue this lifestyle. Nerd271 ( talk) 00:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
My main goal was to try to be bold and clean up some of the accretion here. The article goes on for quite a while and it's difficult to read. Importantly, a lot of the lists had items that were listed multiple times and were very redundant, so I tried to recategorize them and bundle them together a bit more. Finally, a lot of the pictures seemed really haphazard or looked so weird that I wonder whether they were an attempt to discredit the page, so I tried to limit it to one per section.
I think the statistics section could really be condensed into general view instead of a "country by country" or "region by region" view, as there's a lot of unnecessary overlap with the "Aging of..." articles.
As for the third section, it has a lot of overlap with the first section, but I don't quite know how to handle it. It might be best to try to merge the first and third sections into one somehow. For example, the "Selfish" issue/ethical reasons/religion seems like parts of a good lede for the "Philosophical" reasons section. Something like that maybe?
Fephisto ( talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This article has a fair amount of weasel wording problems, but also a lot of issue with overall tone. The photo captions certainly are an issue; they should just describe the image, not use it to say "Oh look and that proves...". Similarly, a good deal of the rest of this article seems to be advocating this position, rather than simply describing the fact that it is and has historically been controversial, why, and presenting referenced facts about it so that the reader can learn about it and make up their own mind. While I personally agree that it's perfectly fine for someone to decide not to have children, the article shouldn't be pushing that, or any, position. It should present actual facts (environmental impact and so on), of course, but in a neutral way, and if "some say" something, it needs to be specified who "some" is and why their thoughts are of particular significance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costsis sourced to [1], which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim,
The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to [2], an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, [3], which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
We can rephrase the captions to better match the body text, if necessary. We are talking about opinions here. So it is perfectly fine to use opinion or commentary articles. This is like the Reception section for an article about a movie. Nerd271 ( talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Some have argued that the conscientiousness of childfree environmentalists...(who has argued that?),
The decision not to have children has been derided as "unnatural"...(who derided it that way?),
Some women have argued that revealing their decision to not have children was akin to coming out as gay(who are some examples of those women?), and so on from there. It's not just "some", but weasel wording in general—"it's said", "some believe", "it is believed", "it is held", and so on. By whom? All of that is weasel wording.As to checking the sources, I'll try to get through those as I can, may make a separate section for that, but just checking a few certainly showed issues with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voluntary childlessness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Is the image of a woman talking to her pet rooster really the best image to represent voluntary childlessness? Fephisto ( talk) 04:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a criticism section? I say this in relation to the article being voluntary childlessness and thus a choice. Perhaps criticism in relation to ideological aspects like antinatalism, a view that does have note of criticism in its article. Zilch-nada ( talk) 11:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no mention of the most important reason to be child free,IMO, that it is immoral to impose a life of struggles and pain onto another being. 50.206.145.234 ( talk) 21:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need a large section on celebrities who pursue this lifestyle. Nerd271 ( talk) 00:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
My main goal was to try to be bold and clean up some of the accretion here. The article goes on for quite a while and it's difficult to read. Importantly, a lot of the lists had items that were listed multiple times and were very redundant, so I tried to recategorize them and bundle them together a bit more. Finally, a lot of the pictures seemed really haphazard or looked so weird that I wonder whether they were an attempt to discredit the page, so I tried to limit it to one per section.
I think the statistics section could really be condensed into general view instead of a "country by country" or "region by region" view, as there's a lot of unnecessary overlap with the "Aging of..." articles.
As for the third section, it has a lot of overlap with the first section, but I don't quite know how to handle it. It might be best to try to merge the first and third sections into one somehow. For example, the "Selfish" issue/ethical reasons/religion seems like parts of a good lede for the "Philosophical" reasons section. Something like that maybe?
Fephisto ( talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This article has a fair amount of weasel wording problems, but also a lot of issue with overall tone. The photo captions certainly are an issue; they should just describe the image, not use it to say "Oh look and that proves...". Similarly, a good deal of the rest of this article seems to be advocating this position, rather than simply describing the fact that it is and has historically been controversial, why, and presenting referenced facts about it so that the reader can learn about it and make up their own mind. While I personally agree that it's perfectly fine for someone to decide not to have children, the article shouldn't be pushing that, or any, position. It should present actual facts (environmental impact and so on), of course, but in a neutral way, and if "some say" something, it needs to be specified who "some" is and why their thoughts are of particular significance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
In line with policies of family-friendliness, governments and employers typically offer support for parents, even though people without children might have to care for invalid, disabled, or elderly dependents, commitments that entail significant financial and emotional costsis sourced to [1], which does not so far as I can tell in any way discuss the issues of adult caregiving in connection or contrast with childlessness, so that's SYNTH. The source would have to explicitly make a connection between them in order for the article to. This claim,
The "life" aspect of the work-life balance is often taken to mean parenting. Non-parents, including the childfree, are thus assumed to be career-focused and willing to work extra time, which is not necessarily the case. What they do with their free time is not considered as important., is stated as fact, but is sourced to [2], an editorial (note the "Commentary" tag.) Editorials can be used as a source for what their author's opinion is, but not for factual statements. There's also this source, [3], which is used for several claims—but while being published by the New York Free Press probably makes it reasonably good reliability-wise, I don't know if the book actually supports those claims or not, because book cites need page numbers, not just a citation to the book as a whole. And that's on a spot check of a couple paragraphs—so if there's more sourcing issues like those, there's a lot to be done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
We can rephrase the captions to better match the body text, if necessary. We are talking about opinions here. So it is perfectly fine to use opinion or commentary articles. This is like the Reception section for an article about a movie. Nerd271 ( talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Some have argued that the conscientiousness of childfree environmentalists...(who has argued that?),
The decision not to have children has been derided as "unnatural"...(who derided it that way?),
Some women have argued that revealing their decision to not have children was akin to coming out as gay(who are some examples of those women?), and so on from there. It's not just "some", but weasel wording in general—"it's said", "some believe", "it is believed", "it is held", and so on. By whom? All of that is weasel wording.As to checking the sources, I'll try to get through those as I can, may make a separate section for that, but just checking a few certainly showed issues with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)